Thursday, September 28, 2006

Abortion laws take second place to dollar signs

Cross Posted from: The Conservative Right


This is a wonderful article on World Net Daily that I urge everyone to read.

Here are some excerpts:

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline believes that it is his job to see that the laws are followed, but he ran into a brick wall when he concluded the laws that apply to the abortion industry, such as reporting an assault when a 10-year-old has an abortion, ALSO must be upheld.

An Ohio woman, Jennifer Jiroux, who works with Citizens for Community Values, told WND the nation needs more prosecutors like Kline. She cited as an example a recent case in which a 12-year-old was taken to an abortion clinic after an assault by a soccer coach, an assault that wasn’t uncovered until some teachers overheard school children teasing the 12-year-old.

I find it utterly amazing that if it had not been for the teasing from school children, the sexual assualt on this young girl by a soccer coach may have gone unnoticed. The good news is there is currently a Bill in congress which could stop this from happening in the future.

S. 403, rightly known as the Teen Endangerment Act is currently making its way through the legislature. The bill would make it illegal for anyone other than the girls parent to accompany her acroess state lines in order to get an abortion.

Of course the ACLU is not happy about this, and has issued a Press Release :



"More than anything, we want our teens to be safe. By passing this legislation, Congress would succeed only in further endangering already at-risk teenagers," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The reality is that the parents of most teens seeking abortions are aware of their daughter’s decision. But no legislation in the world can create good family communication. Rather than helping already frightened teens, this legislation may delay their getting the prompt medical care and counseling they need."

Well if the parents are aware of their daughter's decision, this bill is a non issue to them. Mrs. Fredrickson makes a feeble attempt to argue here that this legislation would delay teenage girls from getting 'medical care'. You have to admire the spin the ACLU has attempted to put on this. Congress is trying to pass a law that would require parental consent for an abortion in turn preventing rapists from bringing their victim to the clinics, and they use the term denial of prompt medical care to argue their case.

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. —Dwight D. Eisenhower, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

ACLU Pushed Woman to Have an Abortion so they could Sue

Crossposted from The Conservative Right


This is a very interesting article in Insight Magazine and shows just how far the ACLU will go to advance their agenda.

In her affidavit to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Ms. Cano said she approached a legal aid office in Atlanta for help in regaining custody of her children and a divorce from her husband. She said she was taken advantage of by an "aggressive self-serving attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, the legal-aid attorney."

Ms. Cano said she never signed an affidavit that said she did not want or could not care for another baby. The affidavit also raised the possibility that she might commit suicide.

"I am 99 percent certain that I did not sign this affidavit,"

Ms. Cano said. "I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true."

Ms. Cano said her mother and the legal aid attorney tried to force her to have an abortion. She said she fled to Oklahoma and returned when she was assured that she would not have to undergo an abortion. Ms. Cano said she went to court where she was told by her attorney not to speak.

Years after the Supreme Court decision, Ms. Cano sued to open up her records, a move opposed by Ms. Pitts Hames. The records showed that Ms. Cano had applied for abortion, was rejected and then sued the state of Georgia, all of which she said was a lie.

"The basic thing is that Doe v. Bolton was fraud," Ms. Cano said. "None of this was my decision. None of this was me. I don't understand why no one took it upon themselves in such an important case, a case that allowed a law to be passed to take innocent human lives, to speak to the plaintiff in the case. Why they didn't speak to me?"

Articles like this do not surprise me on bit. Back in the 1950's Dorothy Kenyon-lawyer, feminist, and veteran ACLU board member was trying to persuade the organization to fight abortion restrictions. She did not succeed; but attorney Harriet Pilpel took up the cause at a 1964 ACLU conference. Pilpel was an able lawyer and a strong personality; she was devoted to the cause of birth control and population control, including abortion. Her law firm represented the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and she did most of the work on that account. At some point Pilpel also became interested in eugenics, probably under the influence of the president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who was also vice president of the American Eugenics Society. Eugenics is the effort to breed a "better" human race, partly by suppressing the birthrate of the handicapped, the poor, and minorities.

Eugenics was also a very popular idea with the communist party, which the founder of the ACLU Roger Baldwin was a supporter of.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Roger Baldwin

Monday, September 18, 2006

ACLU is now the enemy of this country

Here is a wonderful opinion posted in The Eastern Arizona Courier

To the Editor:
Hal Herbert, the Howard Dean of Graham County, and his sidekicks have a problem. They don’t seem to realize it but they have become the kooky fringe of what had once been a proud Democratic Party.
I was born into a liberal Democratic family. The liberals of the 1950s, however, were more conservative than the Republicans of today. My father, a real estate attorney, did a considerable amount of free legal work for (and donated 10 percent of his annual income to) the ACLU. I’m glad that he isn’t alive today to see what has happened to this once noble institution. Run now by a radical homosexual, Anthony Romero, the ACLU spends its time and considerable resources suing communities to force the removal of nativity scenes from town squares, crosses from 50-year-old war memorials, suing the Boy Scouts to force them to use homosexual scoutmasters and suing the government over the treatment of terrorists.They have been defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association. I think we understand from the name what this group of degenerates stands for. The ACLU hates Christianity but loves Islam. They did nothing when the city of Hamtrammack, Mich., decided to allow its people to be subjected to two minutes of chanting in Arabic over loudspeakers six times a day beginning at 6 a.m.The duplicitous ACLU doesn’t practice what it preaches. It has investigated and kept secret files on its contributors and passed internal rules stifling dissent on its own board. A few months ago, a number of former directors, including the former chairman, sat in on a meeting as a protest against the leadership and direction of the current ACLU, but they were not permitted to speak. So much for free speech.
The demented liberals side with our enemies, who are trying their best to kill us, and they intentionally hamstring our government’s effort to confine and interrogate terrorists.The New York Times, one of the many newspapers run by liberal nutcases who inherited their money and didn’t earn it, disclosed secret government wiretaps of terrorist phone calls and the fact that we were tracking Bin Laden by his satellite phone, ruining both programs.You want to shake these guys and ask whose side they are on, but, sadly, I think everyone now knows. These pathetic individuals honestly think George Bush is the enemy, not the terrorists. An association of looney (but tenured) college professors now teach students that the U.S. Government blew up both the levees in New Orleans and the World Trade Center. These liberals are truly the Fifth Column. The modern-day Quislings may one day suffer the same fate.While some people think the general air of nuttiness surrounding politics these days is responsible, I don’t. These shameful appeasers are either traitors who should be imprisoned or they are just plain crazy and belong in a mental hospital. When the terrorists hit us again, I hope people remember who in our midst hurt our ability to track them down beforehand. Remember that two of the 9/11 terrorists were spotted as suspicious by a ticket agent before the fatal flight left Boston — airline lawyers were called and told the agents they were afraid of a lawsuit and they had to board the two passengers. You know what happened next.It’s time to bring back shunning and ostracism. Why help those who are aiding the enemy?Say what you will about free speech, but when your free speech is going to get the rest of us killed, buster, you are done talking. The majority of sane Americans do not want the noisy liberals to endanger us any longer. It is time to put an end to this insanity.

Justin SalemPima

Monday, September 11, 2006

House Judiciary Committee Passes PERA

FreeRepublic.com reports "On Friday the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), also known as HR 2679. This bill will go to the full House for a vote. The bill's intent is to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by state and local officials that results from the threat that a plaintiff may seek damages and attorney's fees. If the bill passes, advocacy groups like the ACLU would no longer be able to use the threat of monetary awards to force the removal of Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, crosses from city seals, or the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance."

Another article reported:
"Most Americans remain unaware the ACLU and other organizations have been reaping millions of dollars in taxpayer-paid attorney's fees from lawsuits against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious heritage. In recent testimony to the Senate, Rees Lloyd, former ACLU attorney and Department of California District 21 Commander, provided these examples of ACLU awards of taxpayer money: Approximately $950,000 in attorney fees was awarded to the ACLU in a settlement with the City of San Diego in its lawsuit to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. In the Judge Roy Moore Ten Commandments case, the ACLU received $500,000. In a recent "Intelligent Design" case against a school board, the ACLU received $2 million in attorney fees by order of a judge -- although the law firm that represented the ACLU informed the court and public that it had acted pro bono and waived any attorney fees; these fees were pure profit to the ACLU."
PERA is a huge step in limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits from groups like the ACLU. No longer can they sue schools over Christmas Trees, or a Picture of Jesus which has been hanging in the hallway for 38 years with the township footing the bill for their attorneys. Lets see how important these issues really are to the ACLU once their legal costs have to come from their own pocket!

Illegal immigrants Suing?

According the the Associated Press 7 day laborers, some of them illegal immigrants are suing Mamaroneck NY for prohibiting the use of a park as a worker pickup site. Although this lawsuit was not filed by the ACLU it certainly has their stench attached to it.

The article states "They [the day laborers] seek an injunction against what they describe as official harassment that violates their rights to free speech, free association and equal protection. The workers, all using the name John Doe in the lawsuit, claim the village "has embarked on a deliberate and coordinated campaign to harass plaintiffs and other Latino day laborers to deter them from soliciting work in the village."

As far as I am concerned, the only rights any illegal immigrant has it the right to go back to their home country and re-enter the US legally! They certainly should not have the right to file a lawsuit against a town, in which taxpayers will now have to pay for the towns legal defense, aside from the costs associated with any trial held in a public court i.e. the Judge, Clerks, Court Reporters etc.

And since when can a plaintiff enter a courtroom under an assumed name? 7 John Doe's are suing a town. I wonder if the Judge decides to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs in this case, if we will also decree that the check be made payable to "John Doe"?

Despite what ACLU sais BoyScouts have rights

In a case that never should have made it to a State Supreme Court, the Oregon State Court overturned a lower courts decision that stated a Public School which gave the Boy Scouts of America equal access to the school for recruiting was discriminatory.

The Boy Scouts of America's Legal website reports that the lawsuit was filed by "An atheist mother represented by the ACLU complained that allowing Boy Scouts to recruit in public schools on the same basis as other groups discriminated against her atheist son who attends Portland public schools."

I am sure I am not the only one who feels this was a blatant waste of taxpayers money, and should never have seen the inside of a court room much less a State Supreme Court. The ACLU had the nerve to argue that by treating one group equally the school board was discriminating. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The most frightening thing about this case however was not the frivolousness of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU, we are used to those by now, it is that a lower court had initially ruled in favor of the atheist mother stating it was discriminatory! It is pretty scary that in this country we have Judges with such a warped view of reality.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

'Sexual indoctrination' bill vetoed

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a big step today in vetoing a bill which had been passed by state legislature which would have prevented any school teaching materials or activities from "reflecting adversely" upon homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders. Way to go Arnold!!

According to World Net Daily Craig DeLuz, president of the Robla School Board, said SB 1437 would have allowed only "positive images of homosexuals in any context of education."
"Meaning that if you wanted to talk about the spread of AIDS, if you wanted to talk about high-risk sexual activities, male-to-male sexual contact could not be mentioned because you'll have violated SB 1437," he said. "But that's the truth! What kind of law hides the truth?"

But I think CCF Latino spokesman Luis Goldamez said it best:
"We can no longer allow girlie-men in this state or any state to dictate to our children what they're going to teach them. We need to see them face-to-face and tell them, we have our pants on the right way, we are men and women, we are not confused. And if anyone needs to teach our children, it needs to be us parents, not girlie-men from this building or any other building,"

Although I am happy to see that this bill did not become law, I have to admit I am a little worried. How the hell did it pass state legislature??? California already has strict discrimination and anti-harassment laws, specifically in regards to homosexuals... why did they feel a need to pass a law that would prevent schools from teaching anything that would reflect adversely on homosexuals?

Waste of Taxpayer money???

According the the Times Union a Jacksonville newspaper, American Atheists Inc have filed a lawsuit over the cities "Day of Faith". And here is the kicker... they are suing on behalf of taxpayers!

The Times Union reports "A Day of Faith: Arming Our Prayer Warriors featured short sermons by several Christian ministers, prayers and religious music. One Muslim and one Jewish leader also participated.... The mayor has also noted that secular nonprofit agencies were heavily involved in the effort."

So what we have here is a Town wide event sponsored by numerous charitable organizations in an effort to try and lower the homicide rate, which at the time stood at 96 for the year. But because there were religious leaders there who encouraged the group to pray, the American Atheists say taxpayers should not have to foot the bill.

I have a question for American Atheists Inc., lets say hypothetically a Judge rules in your favor and sais the Town had no right to spend $101,000 to hold this event... where do you think the money will come from? Anyone else think it is moronic to sue on behalf of taxpayers, when it will obviously be taxpayers footing the bill? And lets not forget those legal fees!

And here comes the ACLU. According to the article :
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Jacksonville, meanwhile, has filed records requests with the city seeking information on who was invited to the rally and its funding.
Chapter President Ken Hurley said he's received some of the requested documents and that he has forwarded them to ACLU attorneys for review. But he said it is far too early to predict whether the organization will also file a lawsuit.
"You can't expect that but you can't rule it out, either," Hurley said."

Who are you kidding Ken? The only way the ACLU wont get involved in this thing is if the case is settled before the lawyers figure out how much they can bill the taxpayers for suing them!

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Score one for the children

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a convicted child molester has no fundamental right to visit a public park. According to the Indianapolis Star Michigan City adopted an ordinance in 20002 banning Robert E Brown from city parks "after they said Brown visited Washington Park almost daily, staring at children through binoculars and taking photographs from his van. Brown denied the allegations."

The ACLU obviously stepped in to defend Mr Brown. Once again putting the rights of convicted felons ahead of those rights of the innocent, the ACLU argued that this law deprived him of his 14th Amendment due process rights.

14th Amendment due process rights??? Are they out of their %*$#ing minds? What are they suggesting by using the term due process, is it that Michigan City had no right to ban him from the park until he committed a crime in that park, was arrested for it, was convicted by a trial jury, and had exhausted his appeals?

"As a practical matter of ensuring public safety, Mr. Brown is not just another patron of the public parks," Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote in the ruling. "He is a convicted child molester whose frequency of attendance and atypical behavior while in the park justified the concern of those public officials charged with ensuring the safety of members of the public who visit the recreational site."

I couldn't have said it better myself! Considering this is by no means the first time, nor will it be the last time the ACLU has defended the rights of convicted child molesters to congregate where children play, I can only hope more Judges read this ruling and take note.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Let sex offenders live near schools??

What else should we expect from a group which fights for the rights of organizations such as NAMBLA? The ACLU is now opposing a law which would make it illegal for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders who offended against children from living within 2,500 feet of any school, day care, or recreational place. Seems like a reasonable law to most people, but not the ACLU.

According to an article in the Milford Daily News John Reinstein, legal director for the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union, said such ordinances violate the civil liberties of sex offenders, who have already paid for their crimes.
He called the ordinances a "scatter-shot response to sex offenders, heading in the wrong direction."

No that is not a misprint, this is a direct quote!! He actually said it violates the civil liberties of sex offenders!! Hey John, what about the rights of the children? What do you suppose John Reinstein would do if a convicted sex offender who targeted children moved in next door to him? Presumably, because he would have already paid his debt to society, Mr. Reinstein would probably invite him over for coffee, or ask him to babysit his children. Right?

Lets not forget we are talking only about people convicted of Level 2 and Level 3 sex crimes against children. Children being the key word in this sentence. Do you think the parents of a 12 year old girl who was violently raped would ever agree that her rapist has paid his debt to society? Do you think Mr. Reinstein would agree to having this same individual living across the street from the school that his own 12 year old daughter attends?

Absolutely not!

Friday, September 01, 2006

One more time on Wiretapping

The ACLU plans on running a new campaign entitled "don't spy on me". What the ACLU hopes to do (aside from using taxpayer dollars in an attempt to undermine our governments security) is gain enough support from American Citizens that Congress will start to listen to their propaganda.

Interestingly enough, I took a look at their website and their very first argument for sending this e-mail was "The recent terror plot exposed in the United Kingdom highlights the need to make sure our anti-terrorism resources are focused on al Qaeda operatives and not wasted on innocent Americans who have done nothing wrong. "

What does the ACLU think the NSA is doing??? Does the ACLU realistically think that the NSA and FBI are tapping into phone lines to find out who has been cheating on their taxes? Or maybe this multi-million dollar program is being used to find out who everyone is voting for in the upcoming elections?

Get a clue ACLU! "Innocent" Americans have nothing to fear from this program. The point of this program was to identify American citizens who were making contact with individuals on the Terrorist watch list. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, neither the NSA or FBI listened to any phone calls between 2 US citizens here in America, only when the phone call went overseas to 1 of about a dozen countries were the calls checked to see what the intentions were. Furthermore I do not believe any information obtained would be used in prosecuting individuals (I doubt any of our liberal judges would allow the tape of such conversations to be admitted into evidence). The information obtained would be used only to inform the FBI when and where a possible attack may occur so it can be stopped. All you have to do is read this recent article in USA Today to understand the necessity of this program.

I realize that the idea of the FBI listening to your phone calls may not be very popular in our "free" country, but lets face the facts... in a truly "free" country, one with no authority, no supervision, no accountability, we would have Anarchy. The sole purpose of Government is to protect the people, and our Armed Forces soldiers swear to defend our country from "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

As a law abiding citizen, I am 100% for this program and hope the judges ruling is overturned, and the NSA is allowed to continue. For those of you who are against this program, may I ask... What is it you have to hide?

ACLU worried of racial profiling

In what seems to be a perfectly harmless program run by the American Trucking Association in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security designed to inform law enforcement officials of possible threats to bridges and other landmarks, the ACLU has decided to speak out on it because it may lead to racial profiling.

"This has the potential to be vigilante justice," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty project. "We are in danger of turning truck drivers into barely trained, inadequate police intelligence officials" who focus on "people of color."

Vigilante Justice?? The program asks truck drivers to report suspicious activity to a toll free number, such as someone photographing a bridge, or a garbage truck on the street at 5pm on a Sunday evening. Noone has asked, or will ever ask the men and women of the American Trucking Association to attempt to detain anyone they spot doing suspicious activities. All that is asked is they report it, much as New York City Subway riders are asked to report suspicious activity on the trains.

What I think is happening here is the ACLU is guilty of exactly what they are trying to stop... racial profiling. Every time a program is instituted with the goal of subverting terrorism the ACLU immediately yells "racial profiling". Is that because the ACLU is aware that 99% of the terrorist acts which occur in the world are from people of Middle Eastern and South Asian decent?

This program mentions nothing of race, nor has there been any indication that since its inception in 2003 there have been any reports that were based strictly on race. So why is the ACLU speaking of racial profiling? Its very simple... the program is designed to stop terrorism, and the ACLU treats the word terrorist as synonymous with the word Muslim.